Member Info for Tobythedog

I, and others, are not blaming him for the delays because as you say the reality is we are the minnow, but what I do blame him for is continually giving out timescales that are he never meets. This creating mistrust. How often has it been said he needs to learn to manage expectations. He may well be a fantastic chemical engineer but is poor at communicating and meeting his own self-imposed timelines. The stances taken on this board are frequently at one extreme or the other. Either Jason is to be applauded for giving us information i.e. a timeline or he just say nothing about timescales. In reality there is of course a mid position which he needs to learn that gives us (shareholders) the assurance that QED have done their part but acknowledges two other parties are involved hence no guarantees of when it will be signed off can be given. It's really not that difficult - unless of course your name is Jason!

SemaphorRed

For him to be proved right and to something close to the timescales he has predicted. As we all know this kind of false hope and total miss of target dates just goes on and on.... and on!

Cityfile

Why do you think it might be taken private? QED is a minnow compared to the likes of MSC and the oil major lurking in the background. Companies of their size don't like doing business with tiny companies and especially not small private companies. Any Investment bank will know this hence I think it most unlikely.

Far more likely in my view is that that we will be bought out by an oil major just as soon as the first significant container ship commercial order is received.

Cityfile

I take it as "mildly positive" since QED are limited in what they can say at this point. They have confirmed the agreement is still with the lawyers and not that some new/unforeseen issue has arisen. It is highly frustrating, and yet again Jason's guidance on timing has been proved wrong. We are in no position to dictate to the two other parties involved and so in essence we just have to wait until the others are prepared to sign. I don't see any other options and anything else is just hot air.

Eh .... that'll be tailwind.

With a cumulative tax loss of £62M and at a market cap of £12.5M my belief is that (f you could get it for the £12.5M, and I know you couldn't!) it would be free to a trade buyer.

Sorry to rain on the parade but it looks like a sell to me .

Vince 72

Completely agree. This is very worrying indeed if as the article states MAN have issued a LONO.

Fyoz

Of course not, nothing is for sure in this game! But on the balance of probabilities/ would you bet on them being kept on site if they fail a third time?

Dai

I agree there is too little info to be sure what has happened here, but QED simply cannot expect to be kept on site if they have a third equipment failure. The client simply will not tolerate it. To quote Oscar Wilde “To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Dai

I don't get your point. I agree alternative pump designs will offer different performance characteristics, but surely what is being pumped remains constant. We previously pumped MSAR and are still pumping MSAR (and/or possibly BioMSAR?). What am I missing here. Please explain. Thanks

Dai

It can't be just a higher capacity issue the RNS stated "replacement pump of alternative design". Also they've said it was a design issue which suggests to me it is not a similar type of pump from an alternative manufacturer or of a higher quality spec. My concern remains how on one hand, and very quickly after the event, can they identify that the solution to the problem is an alternative design of pump but according to JM the problem could not have been foreseen. I don't think these two are compatible.

I'm concerned at the apparent contradiction here which just serves to reinforce my concerns about JM's managerial capabilities. -

As Dai has said QED say they have already ordered a new pump of a different design. This suggests they have identified the design problem in which case how does that square with JM's statement that "The design issues experienced with the pumps to date were not foreseeable"? Views anyone?

SemaphorRed

JM is a chemical engineer by background and it is this expertise that is critical to retain for the company. The pump failures are a mechanical/design issue, but I would argue are managerial since the kit should have been thoroughly tested prior to the site demonstration. These tests are mission critical to the success and survival of the company. As has been said earlier one more failure and I assume QED are highly likely to get shown the door.

Or are you suggesting that JM is neither technically or managerially competent?

This is stunning incompetence and so frustrating.. Sadly, JM has proved to be not up to the job. I understand the dilemma to remove him or not but if nothing changes; don't expect the results to change. There must be a way to sideline JM from the CEO role but retain his technical capability.

At 38%participation this is considerably lower than I anticipated and lower than anyone who ventured a percentage on here. QED must now understand that they are in the last chance saloon and need to get a commercial contract delivered and cash flowing "imminently".

So what's everyone thinking? Will you be subscribing or not?

I was underwhelmed. I got no sense of urgency or that things are different this time so timelines will be met. I still have faith in the products and technology. Can Jason get these projects over the line in any reasonable time? Realistically I want to think about it more and hear other opinions but at the moment I'm unconvinced.

U01by

What bonus shares?

I see you can apply for excess shares but would need to pay the offer price of 1.25p. I didn't see anything about bonus shares. Have I missed something here?

PharoahRocher

What industry are you involved with? I worked in the upstream oil industry although not an engineer. My source tell me you would be wide open to criticism, and possible legal action for not carrying out a HAZOP on board the vessel. How could you have taken all aspects into consideration if you don't actually eyeball the situation?

Tuckman

Hopefully that is the case but it is dependent on who is present, what relevant experience they have, and what they find on the day. It's not just a a slam dunk!